It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge to Trump: No protection for speech inciting violence - Fox News Channel

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 02:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: TinfoilTP

What about Ms. Yvette Falarca...who orchestrated the USC Berkeley riots, that resulted in property destruction and injuries?

REF: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Should she be sued for "inciting violence"?


That doesn't count because she was working for DNC / SJW interests.




posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 02:34 AM
link   
It must be nice suing people who identify themselves and take responsibility instead of masked anarchists and mobs of angry leftists.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 02:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh boy...one of those "so-called" judges, who also happens to be an IDIOT. If saying "Get them out of here" can get you sued, imagine the precedent that would set!



"So-called Judge" LOLOL.

The Trumpets sink ever deeper into denial by the day.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Lol, Obama appointed, that's all anyone needs to know.


Really? So nothing about the legal standing of the case, or precedent or anything?

Perhaps you should say that's all a Trump supporter needs to know? LOL

There IS no legal standing...
Another frivolous lawsuit
Hope it is a "loser pays" state
Hill-Freakin Hillarious
Carry on with the humor
I LIKE IT...



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 04:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Lol, Obama appointed, that's all anyone needs to know.


Really? So nothing about the legal standing of the case, or precedent or anything?

Perhaps you should say that's all a Trump supporter needs to know? LOL

There IS no legal standing...
Another frivolous lawsuit
Hope it is a "loser pays" state
Hill-Freakin Hillarious
Carry on with the humor
I LIKE IT...


There's no legal standing ... why? Because you say so? LOL talk about humor.

Let's see ... Trump paid 25 million to get out of the last "frivolous" lawsuit ... wonder how much he'll pay this time?



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: mkultra11
It must be nice suing people who identify themselves and take responsibility instead of masked anarchists and mobs of angry leftists.


Why don't you sue the masked anarchists and alleged mobs of angry leftists?

If you've been damaged somehow.

That's what the folks in the Fox News report are doing.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 04:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Gryphon66

What do you say should be done to MoveOn.org, the Hillary Campaign, Soros, etc, for the Chicago riot?



In case you forgot how that got started:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Did George Soros stand behind a podium and incite the riot?

The people who were damaged should sue.

The people who did damage should pay.

Violence, for political purposes, is not what we do in America.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Do you have something to say about the court case we're discussing in this post?

If so, I'll be glad to hear it. If not, please don't use this thread to publicize in.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 04:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Gryphon66

So asking security to remove someone can lead to you being sued? Wow that cant hold up in any court because they leads into problems even talking to police. People who even report a crime could be held liable for actions of others.


The folks that were directed to remove the protesters were not security, they were audience members, according to the Fox News report. That seems to be part of the problem; perhaps professional security wouldn't have roughed them up or used racial slurs in their removal?




No he had security at each of his rallies most of the time it was the police. He never asked the audience to remove protesters that would just be silly since they wouldn't do it anyway. they would just wait for security as to the individuals that attacked them that's simple its assault take them to court. But in no way is someone else responsible for decisions they make. Or the assaults did no damage to them physically so going after the person doesn't get as much money????


You're mistaken.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: LoneWrecche

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Freedom of speech can not be used to cause direct harm to others.



Hrm, and yet people were told that the violent left wing protests were a direct result of Trump speaking. That it was his fault the violence erupted caused by maniacs who didn't want him to speak.

Ahhh the bitter irony, tastes like tears.


People were told?

Trump incited violence against people from his podium. He's now being called to account for that.

Violence at protests is also wrong. Those who commit it should be called to account for that.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 04:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Lol, Obama appointed, that's all anyone needs to know.


Really? So nothing about the legal standing of the case, or precedent or anything?

Perhaps you should say that's all a Trump supporter needs to know? LOL


When a gangster thugs momma can stand on the hood of a car in the midst of a BLM riot mob and scream burn this b#@$#@# down!! to urge the arsonists on and nothing is done about it, yeah this is frivolous politics with an Obama appointed Judge yet again.


Did the injured parties bring cases against the "gangster thugs momma" (I'm not sure why anyone would think you're racist, geez.) in Judge Hale's court and he threw it out? No?

Then your partisan argument doesn't hold any water.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

doesn't this mean all those people who threatened trumps life, I.E madonna, can be immediately incarcerated? Lmao.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Trump incited violence against people from his podium.

If that is the case the standard of right to refuse service goes out the window.

If someone is robbing you but also buying a candy bar you MUST accommodate them.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Oh please...Get off that high horse. You're showing the Liberal double standard. Again. The SJWs can rip a campus apart or assault people and you're fine with it. Let a Trump supporter step one toe over the line and the Left is ready to hang them. When Trump supporters were spit on or assaulted, did you condemn those who did it?
When campuses were trashed and burned, did you condemn that?
Did you write long posts about the violence and that those who did it should be sued or in jail?

A quick look through your thread history tells me the answer to that. You're perfectly fine with it, as long as it pushes your agenda.

I've said it before and it still applies : " Liberals. If it weren't for double standards, you'd have none at all".



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 05:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
Oh please...Get off that high horse. You're showing the Liberal double standard. Again. The SJWs can rip a campus apart or assault people and you're fine with it. Let a Trump supporter step one toe over the line and the Left is ready to hang them. When Trump supporters were spit on or assaulted, did you condemn those who did it?
When campuses were trashed and burned, did you condemn that?
Did you write long posts about the violence and that those who did it should be sued or in jail?

A quick look through your thread history tells me the answer to that. You're perfectly fine with it, as long as it pushes your agenda.

I've said it before and it still applies : " Liberals. If it weren't for double standards, you'd have none at all".


Are you talking to anyone in particular?

It can't be me, because I'm on record repeatedly as opposing political violence.

Your partisanship is showing. This case is about responsibility, not about liberals and conservatives.

Mr. Trump is not above the law. No one should be above the law, right?

All the arguments here are basically well, _______ did it TOO. By that, you're all acknowledging that Mr. Trump and his followers committed violence.

Now, if you want to make the argument that violence is okay for Trump and Trump supporters, that's a different argument.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 05:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Gryphon66




Trump incited violence against people from his podium.

If that is the case the standard of right to refuse service goes out the window.

If someone is robbing you but also buying a candy bar you MUST accommodate them.


That really doesn't follow.

Mr. Trump, in a position of authority, incited people to attack other people.

He is responsible for that, and more than that, he's on video doing so REPEATEDLY.

We can't use our speech rights to cause harm to others. None of us, not even Trump.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 05:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Doesnt matter which side theyre on . If their speach incites /causes violence throw their asses under the jail for the next 20 years .

Maybe then theyll learn theres civilised ways to do things without inciting / resorting to violence .



Sounds civilized.


Sounds civilized to stand up against violence used for political means?

I agree. Wherever and whenever it is found. Violence is not a political tool in our country.


I just checked, but somehow you completely missed all those opportunities to OP threads shouting down all the violence used by the left the past year.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here's a refresher course for you:
Social Justice Assault Warriors TV Marathon!

Although it sure was interesting how when the Veritas tapes showing Hillary's campaigners out actively inciting riots, you didn't seem to apply your new code therein. Good to see you turning over a new leaf.


This, my friend, is the very definition of ad hominim. Instead of discussing the judge, trump, his followers, or the victims, you question the integrity of the poster. As if that has anything at all to do with this story. As if Trump can stand up in court and say, "Yeah, well look at what Gryphon posted on ATS", and it will be a viable legal defense.

 


It'll be an interesting trial. It sounds like Trump may have some culpability here. You can't stand with a microphone on a stage and direct a mob to phyisically handle other people, and not think you are inciting that violence.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

He said "get them outta here"

That is violent?



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh boy...one of those "so-called" judges, who also happens to be an IDIOT. If saying "Get them out of here" can get you sued, imagine the precedent that would set!



"So-called Judge" LOLOL.

The Trumpets sink ever deeper into denial by the day.


when they go low you go high remember? somewhere Donna Brazile is mumbling that in her sleep, and by calling Trump supporters Trumpets you are taking the high road.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

directing a mob to do so,,,,,could be, if that mob behaves violently.

The reason you hire security: they carry their own liability insurance. SO whe you tell them to get someone out, you aren't sued when they put their hands on a black woman and yell epithets.

Or, put another way: the mob had no legal standing to remove someone.







 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join